China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

[sferrin]

http://www.ibtimes.com/south-china-sea-controversy-beijing-planning-air-defense-identification-zone-amid-us-2376559

A few more details: China plans air defense zone over disputed isles in South China Sea (The Asahi Shimbun)

Wow, who could have predicted that?

 

[Rickshaw]

US flexes muscles as Asia worries about South China Sea row

 

[Grey Havoc]

China Is Planning a Massive Sea Lab 10,000 Feet Underwater (Bloomberg)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/obamas-strategy-thwart-china-south-china-sea-showd/

A retired Japanese admiral says President Obama’s strategy to neutralized China’s territorial claims to a man-made reef in the South China Sea are almost entirely meaningless — and may actually serve to embolden the communist regime.

Retired Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force(JMSDF) Rear Admiral Sumihiko Kawamura, the former vice commandant of the Joint Staff College, told The Sekai Nippo that “the Obama administration’s strategy of freedom of navigation is intended to be a gesture indicating they do not recognize the seas around the artificial islands as territorial waters, but I think this is almost entirely meaningless.

“What the U.S. is currently doing is called ‘innocent passage.’ Innocent passage refers to passage through a nation’s territorial waters by another nation’s military vessels within 12 nautical miles of the shore, taking only the minimum of action necessary and without causing any alarm or intimidation. The passage of military vessels is permitted so long as it is innocent passage. According to the statements by US Department of Defense, U.S. Navy vessels are making innocent passage. That is to say, their actions imply that they recognize the area as Chinese territorial waters, which has the opposite of the intended effect.”

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/11/south-korea-sends-military-boats-repel-chinese-fishermen.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-slowly-turning-the-south-china-sea-its-own-territory-16554

 

[NeilChapman]

I find the general level of negativity, the belief in a "right to rule", disheartening. They are still smarting it appears at the defeat at the hands of the American people of the right-wing agenda of the Republican Party after it lead them into war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Republican Party is going to be defeated again through it's abandonment of the centre with Trump. I wonder how many defeats they will need to learn that it is the centre where the majority resides, not the fringes?

They would be better off seeking real, workable solutions rather than their continual bleating about how terrible the Democrats are and by extension the American people. They shouldn't seek to browbeat people but to lead them. This is politics 101 IMO. Intense partisanship achieves nothing except division.

Please stay on topic.

 

[bobbymike]

I find the general level of negativity, the belief in a "right to rule", disheartening. They are still smarting it appears at the defeat at the hands of the American people of the right-wing agenda of the Republican Party after it lead them into war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Republican Party is going to be defeated again through it's abandonment of the centre with Trump. I wonder how many defeats they will need to learn that it is the centre where the majority resides, not the fringes?

They would be better off seeking real, workable solutions rather than their continual bleating about how terrible the Democrats are and by extension the American people. They shouldn't seek to browbeat people but to lead them. This is politics 101 IMO. Intense partisanship achieves nothing except division.

Please stay on topic.

Neil there is an ignore function I guarantee a happier experience here if you add him to the list.

 

[NeilChapman]

I find the general level of negativity, the belief in a "right to rule", disheartening...

Please stay on topic.

Neil there is an ignore function I guarantee a happier experience here if you add him to the list.

Thanks for the tip, Bobbymike! I'll look for it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

South China Sea ruling: what is at stake (ft.com, registration may be required)


EDIT: EDITORIAL: China interprets international law to suit its convenience (The Asahi Shimbun)

 

[sferrin]

Here's what's going to happen (you read it hear first). If the UN has a spine (doubtful) it will rule against China. China will ignore it. In response to anything the plaintiffs say China will respond along the lines of, " this behavior is dangerously destabilizing, irresponsible, and we will have to deploy military forces to stabilize the region". Those on the left will accuse the US of being the aggressor. For helping it's allies. Whom the UN ruled are being wronged.

 

[Grey Havoc]

South China Sea: The mystery of missing books and maritime claims (BBC News)

 

[Rickshaw]

Here's what's going to happen (you read it hear first). If the UN has a spine (doubtful) it will rule against China.

China has a veto, in the Security Council (the only part of the UN which can create and enforce a binding resolution on a member state), remember? I am amazed that you forget that the veto prevents Security Council resolutions from passing, considering that the US has used it's own veto often enough.

China will ignore it. In response to anything the plaintiffs say China will respond along the lines of, " this behavior is dangerously destabilizing, irresponsible, and we will have to deploy military forces to stabilize the region". Those on the left will accuse the US of being the aggressor. For helping it's allies. Whom the UN ruled are being wronged.

It all depends. If China undertakes no aggressive action, then of course the US is the aggressor. However, I suggest a far more likely scenario, based upon our past experience of US tactics is that Washington will manufacture a casus bellum. : :

Negotiation might be a cheaper and easier solution all round.

 

[bobbymike]

It's like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky had a love child LOL!!

 

[SOC]

China has a veto, in the Security Council (the only part of the UN which can create and enforce a binding resolution on a member state), remember? I am amazed that you forget that the veto prevents Security Council resolutions from passing, considering that the US has used it's own veto often enough.

The Security Council is irrelevant. The "UN ruling" is coming from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, who will ajudicate Phillipino claims that China is violating UNCLOS.

 

[Rickshaw]

China has a veto, in the Security Council (the only part of the UN which can create and enforce a binding resolution on a member state), remember? I am amazed that you forget that the veto prevents Security Council resolutions from passing, considering that the US has used it's own veto often enough.

The Security Council is irrelevant. The "UN ruling" is coming from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, who will ajudicate Phillipino claims that China is violating UNCLOS.

Ah, Permanent Court of Arbitration, that hang over from late 19th century idealism.

It has nothing to do with the UN organisation. It was established by a multi-party treaty in 1899 by the first Hague Peace Conference.

 

[SOC]

It has nothing to do with the UN organisation.

Hence "UN ruling" in quotation marks; it's not being made by a UN body but it's being made in reference to UNCLOS. You'll note that, as not part of the UN, the PCA is also obviously not part of the Security Council...

 

[Rickshaw]

It has nothing to do with the UN organisation.

Hence "UN ruling" in quotation marks; it's not being made by a UN body but it's being made in reference to UNCLOS. You'll note that, as not part of the UN, the PCA is also obviously not part of the Security Council...

True. OK, "UN ruling" now refers to a non-UN body making a ruling which has nothing to with the UN, right?

 

[Michel Van]

interesting
during launch of Long March 7
the rocket hat course south over Expanded Air Defense Zone
seems that some installation on the new islands must be part of tracking stations for China Space program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf10pkD_cU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alFgWFVKc04

 

[SOC]

interesting
during launch of Long March 7
the rocket hat course south over Expanded Air Defense Zone
seems that some installation on the new islands must be part of tracking stations for China Space program

Cuarteron Reef. This is one of the roles we can match the antenna field up to.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-obama-administration-is-failing-to-stop-chinas-pacific-aggression/2016/06/23/fce65f98-396c-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=bufferfc9b0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

 

[NeilChapman]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

For the PRC's sake, I hope they comply with the ruling as it seems likely it will go against them.

 

[sferrin]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

For the PRC's sake, I hope they comply with the ruling as it seems likely it will go against them.

Fairly certain they've already said they'd ignore it.

 

[NeilChapman]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

For the PRC's sake, I hope they comply with the ruling as it seems likely it will go against them.

Fairly certain they've already said they'd ignore it.

Well Scott - Perhaps one ignore in different ways.

You can ignore the ruling and comply without acknowledging your complying...
- or -
You can ignore and continue on with your behavior patterns.

Let's just say if they ignore, which I agree they will, then I hope they comply.

 

[Arjen]

There is the trifling matter of the American Service-Members' Protection Act, sometimes known as the Invasion of The Hague Act. It was signed into law in 2002, it has not been repealed since.
As the Christian Science Monitor put it in 2009:

Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.

While I'm relieved the Act seems to be a dead letter in current US politics, I'm slightly apprehensive of what use the Act will be to future US administrations.
A little more from CSM:

In retrospect, jurists say, US officials over-read the power of the court. Under basic ICC rules called "complementarity," the ICC is powerless to prosecute war crimes the US is willing to investigate.

"The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak," says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. "Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers' [are charged with] war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction."

I am reminded of the Dutch expression 'met een kanon op een mug schieten' - 'firing a cannon at a gnat'. Passing the Act amounted to flipping the bird at the ICC and all the signatories that ratified the Rome Statute, without, in retrospect, any need for doing so. I have some doubts about the long-term commitment of the US to upholding international law. Right now, some other nations are showing rather less respect for international treaties than the current US administration. I hope the US will not descend to their level.

 

[sferrin]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

For the PRC's sake, I hope they comply with the ruling as it seems likely it will go against them.

Fairly certain they've already said they'd ignore it.

Well Scott - Perhaps one ignore in different ways.

You can ignore the ruling and comply without acknowledging your complying...
- or -
You can ignore and continue on with your behavior patterns.

Let's just say if they ignore, which I agree they will, then I hope they comply.

My money is they'll keep doing whatever they want, as they have been, regardless of what any ruling says.

 

[Rickshaw]

China slams South China Sea case as court set to rule (Reuters)

Arbitration panel to rule July 12 in South China Sea dispute (The Washington Post)

For the PRC's sake, I hope they comply with the ruling as it seems likely it will go against them.

Fairly certain they've already said they'd ignore it.

Well Scott - Perhaps one ignore in different ways.

You can ignore the ruling and comply without acknowledging your complying...
- or -
You can ignore and continue on with your behavior patterns.

Let's just say if they ignore, which I agree they will, then I hope they comply.

My money is they'll keep doing whatever they want, as they have been, regardless of what any ruling says.

You mean just like their great example, the United States has, when it suits it?

 

[Grey Havoc]

China to Hold Military Exercises in South China Sea, Raising Tensions (The Wall Street Journal, registration may be required.)

 

[sferrin]

Beijing ‘will ignore Hague ruling on South China Sea’


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beijing-says-it-will-ignore-hague-ruling-on-south-china-sea-273phfmjb

I am shocked. Shocked! I tell you.

 

[Triton]

Good thing the Philippines has a military alliance with the United States...

"The Now and Future US-Philippines Military Alliance"
by Eleanor Albert Council on Foreign Relations

June 29, 2016
Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/us-philippine-military-alliance/129504/

 

[sferrin]

Good thing the Philippines has a military alliance with the United States...

"The Now and Future US-Philippines Military Alliance"
by Eleanor Albert Council on Foreign Relations

June 29, 2016
Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/us-philippine-military-alliance/129504/

Not sure it'll do much good. I don't see the US being willing to honor any treaty obligations against a near-peer. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Rickshaw]

Good thing the Philippines has a military alliance with the United States...

"The Now and Future US-Philippines Military Alliance"
by Eleanor Albert Council on Foreign Relations

June 29, 2016
Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/us-philippine-military-alliance/129504/

Not sure it'll do much good. I don't see the US being willing to honor any treaty obligations against a near-peer. Time will tell I suppose.

This is so reassuring to your Allies...

 

[Grey Havoc]

G-7 to demand China respect intl ruling over South China Sea (The Yomiuri Shimbun )

 

[bobbymike]

Good thing the Philippines has a military alliance with the United States...

"The Now and Future US-Philippines Military Alliance"
by Eleanor Albert Council on Foreign Relations

June 29, 2016
Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/us-philippine-military-alliance/129504/

Not sure it'll do much good. I don't see the US being willing to honor any treaty obligations against a near-peer. Time will tell I suppose.

This is so reassuring to your Allies...

Unless sferrin is really the Nom de Plume of SecState John Kerry (and US allies know this) I don't think his SPF post, even if accurate, will have much impact on international treaties or security arrangements.

 

[sferrin]

Unless sferrin is really the Nom de Plume of SecState John Kerry (and US allies know this) I don't think his SPF post, even if accurate, will have much impact on international treaties or security arrangements.

Yep, just pointing out the obvious.

 

[sferrin]

South China Sea – Beijing in Propaganda Overdrive Ahead of Key Court Ruling

"“We do not know, we don’t care, in fact, when this arbitration decision will be made, because no matter what kind of decision this tribunal is going to make, we think it is totally wrong,” China’s ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, told Reuters at a recent lunch in London."

“It has no impact on China, on China’s sovereignty over these reefs, over the islands. And it will set a serious, wrong and bad example. We will not fight this case in court, but we will certainly fight for our sovereignty.”"

http://gcaptain.com/south-china-sea-beijing-in-propaganda-overdrive-ahead-of-key-court-ruling/

 

[Grey Havoc]

China criticises Japanese jet scramble over East China Sea (BBC News)

 

[Rickshaw]

Good thing the Philippines has a military alliance with the United States...

"The Now and Future US-Philippines Military Alliance"
by Eleanor Albert Council on Foreign Relations

June 29, 2016
Source:
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/06/us-philippine-military-alliance/129504/

Not sure it'll do much good. I don't see the US being willing to honor any treaty obligations against a near-peer. Time will tell I suppose.

This is so reassuring to your Allies...

Unless sferrin is really the Nom de Plume of SecState John Kerry (and US allies know this) I don't think his SPF post, even if accurate, will have much impact on international treaties or security arrangements.

That is just so reassuring.

I find it interesting that you make excuses for him...

Yet when I or others make similar points we are immediately attacked... :

 

[Rickshaw]

Unless sferrin is really the Nom de Plume of SecState John Kerry (and US allies know this) I don't think his SPF post, even if accurate, will have much impact on international treaties or security arrangements.

Yep, just pointing out the obvious.

Do you really believe that or are your views rather coloured by your politics? :